I don't know that people voluntarily sharing private resources to indemnify one another is "socialism." And, they should care about price and there should be a huge incentive to do so. If you pool your money with me and then I get sick, you don't want me spending recklessly on services that are above equilibrium free market price points. And in a free market insurance companies will compete for subscribers and experience only normal profits.

IMHO, any time resources are pooled it is a version of socialism. It isn't always forced by government (but sometimes through other means of coercion).

In theory, people should care about prices. In practice, it's a different story.

Let's take an example of auto insurance. A car gets in a wreck. The insurance company recommends an "authorized" repair shop. The repair shop gives a quote that is at least twice as much as it should cost, often much more than that. The person getting their car repaired doesn't care as long as it gets fixed. The insurance (sales) agent doesn't care, as long as the customer is happy. The person who OKs the repair at the insurance company doesn't care, as long as they get their paycheck. The executives don't care, as long as they get their salaries and bonuses. Shareholders have no say or visibility whatsoever.

Nobody cares about the cost, therefore there is no price competition or market price discovery. The result is soaring prices. This is the essential problem with all government goods and services, but it is not limited to government.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

(R-Ky.) on Sunday said he would consider voting for a partial repeal of ObamaCare.

"I've been telling leadership for months now that I will vote for a repeal, and it doesn't have to be a 100 percent repeal," Paul said on ABC's "This Week."

"For example, I'm for 100 percent repeal, that's what I want, but if you offer me a 90 percent repeal, I'd probably vote for it. I might vote for 80 percent repeal."

ADVERTISEMENT
Paul said people need to realize that the "ObamaCare subsidies in this bill are actually greater under the Republican bill than they are under the current ObamaCare law."
"That is not anywhere close to repeal," he said.

When asked whether he was a "no" vote, Paul said he is "at this point."

But Paul said if the Senate moves toward a bill that is "more repeal and less big government programs," he could change his vote.

"Yes, I'll consider partial repeal," he said.

When pressed on what that means, Paul said: "It means more freedom."

"It means they have to legalize the sale of inexpensive insurance," he added.

There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

Assuming the "moderates" do, that leaves three, and Lee's the decisive vote IMO.

If he sticks with Rand, so will Cruz, as he won't want to be the sole guy responsible for passing it.

If Lee folds, Cruz will too, since he's up for reelection next year and (short term) it's probably easier to pass than oppose.

Originally Posted by CaptUSA

No he won't. Rand's not running again (at least for Senate) for 5 more years. By then, if this turd passes, they'll all be running from it. If it fails, then Obamacare gets the blame for the mess and Rand can, again, talk about a real answer.

Exactly

Originally Posted by CPUd

The Trump PAC is going after Heller for "failing to repeal Obamacare". They know better than to go after Rand.

I hope they do. The more people know that Rand opposed this 4-5 years from now, the better.

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

Yep, insurance itself is the problem. It is socialism by it's very nature. A big pot of money to be "shared". No one cares about the costs of services, thus prices and overhead increases are out control. Just because it isn't a forced, single provider government socialism program doesn't prevent it from having all of the same flaws.

Insurance isn't socialistic and isn't the problem. The problem is the state subsidizing demand through medicare/medicaid/ACA while simultaneously restricting supply through professional licensing, restrictions on the construction of new hospitals, the FDA (aka Big Pharma's state sponsored cartel operator), and the protectionist ban on imported drugs, to name the major factors. Medical insurance existed and worked just fine in the past. People mistakenly blame insurance because it's gotten more prevalent in recent decades, but that's an effect of the massive price inflation in medicine, not its cause.

"The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

-Ludwig von Mises

"Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

-Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

"The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

The best outcome might be for this crap to pass over Rand and Lee's objection, pushed through by Pence, and for Trump and other leftist GOPers to own it, lose the mid-term anyway, and then have a Randward revolution in the party by 2020. Course, that means we have to live with the crap for the next several years, but that might be a price worth paying.

"The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

-Ludwig von Mises

"Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

-Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

"The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

The people in the TV are all speculating this morning over which senators could be persuaded to vote for this. When they get to Rand, they say, "Rand won't vote for this because it doesn't repeal Obamacare". This is in between other senators coming on the shows to talk about how they have to vote for this bill because they promised to repeal Obamacare.

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

The people in the TV are all speculating this morning over which senators could be persuaded to vote for this. When they get to Rand, they say, "Rand won't vote for this because it doesn't repeal Obamacare". This is in between other senators coming on the shows to talk about how they have to vote for this bill because they promised to repeal Obamacare.

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

He probably told them they need to read these bills before publicly commenting on them.

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

Well, the Pence meeting looks to be with several Republicans, not just Paul, who have issue with the bill, so it might be to see if they can be on one accord or possibly for Pence to see what they would like. Baseless speculation, pretty much.

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

IMHO, any time resources are pooled it is a version of socialism. It isn't always forced by government (but sometimes through other means of coercion).

In theory, people should care about prices. In practice, it's a different story.

Let's take an example of auto insurance. A car gets in a wreck. The insurance company recommends an "authorized" repair shop. The repair shop gives a quote that is at least twice as much as it should cost, often much more than that. The person getting their car repaired doesn't care as long as it gets fixed. The insurance (sales) agent doesn't care, as long as the customer is happy. The person who OKs the repair at the insurance company doesn't care, as long as they get their paycheck. The executives don't care, as long as they get their salaries and bonuses. Shareholders have no say or visibility whatsoever.

Nobody cares about the cost, therefore there is no price competition or market price discovery. The result is soaring prices. This is the essential problem with all government goods and services, but it is not limited to government.

Great example but this seems to be an imperfect market for one reason or another. Wouldn't an upstart auto insurance company be able to severely undercut it's competition by "authorizing" it's repair shops based upon price? A simple matter to ascertain free market value of repairs. Then just contract to send them lots of business.

This week the Senate Republican leadership unveiled its Obamacare replacement plan. Like its House counterpart, the misnamed Senate plan retains most of Obamacare’s core features.

Both the House and Senate plans allow states to obtain waivers providing relief from some Obamacare mandates, although the waivers in both bills are too restrictive to be of much value. For example, the Senate's bill does not allow states to have waived two of Obamacare’s most destructive mandates — guaranteed issue and community ratings.

The healthcare debate is dominated by emotional rhetoric about how government-run healthcare is necessary to protect the vulnerable. For example, in May, Jimmy Kimmel Live host Jimmy Kimmel delivered a touching monologue about his newborn son’s open-heart surgery. Mr. Kimmel ended his monologue with a plea to retain Obamacare so all children can obtain life-saving treatment. After the monologue became a national sensation, many suggested that any Obamacare replacement plan be judged by a "Jimmy Kimmel test.”

Every decent human being supports a healthcare system that ensures children have access to medical care. However, this does not mean every decent person should support government-run healthcare. In fact decent people should oppose all forms of nationalized medicine.

Government intervention in healthcare distorts the marketplace with mandates, subsidies, and price controls. As is the case with any goods or services, price controls in healthcare result in shortages and even price increases as providers look for ways to offset their losses caused by the controls. This is why many Americans have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket under Obamacare.

Government-run healthcare can be deadly. Anyone who doubts this should consider the case of Laura Hillier, an 18 year-old Canadian who passed away from leukemia while on a government medical treatment wait list. This is one of many horror stories from Canada, and other countries with nationalized healthcare, of individuals who died while waiting for their turn to receive medical treatment.

One need not look to Canada to find casualties of government intervention in healthcare. In 2013 Sarah Murnaghan, a ten-year-old cystic fibrosis patient, almost died because of federal rules forbidding children her age from receiving organ transplants. Public outcry eventually forced the government to allow Sarah to receive the transplant, but how many Sarahs have died because of government organ transplant rules?

The Jimmy Kimmel test is a valid way to evaluate healthcare proposals. However, there should also be a Laura Hillier or Sarah Murnaghan test forbidding adoption of a new healthcare system that increases healthcare costs, creates healthcare shortages, or allows government to deny anyone access to healthcare.

The free market meets all these tests. In a free market, doctors voluntarily donate their time to help those in need, while private charities and churches fund charity hospitals and clinics. Such a system flourished in the days before Medicaid and Medicare, and would quickly return if the welfare state is eliminated.

Congress should be working to repeal all federal interference in healthcare, including by shutting down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA raises the cost of medicine, denies Americans access to effective treatments, and prevents individuals from learning about cost-effective ways to improve their health.

Unfortunately, a Congress that so quickly abandons its promise to repeal and replace Obamacare will not restore free-market healthcare — or otherwise reduce the welfare-warfare state — unless forced to do so by an economic crisis or demands from a critical mass of pro-liberty Americans.

IMHO, any time resources are pooled it is a version of socialism. It isn't always forced by government (but sometimes through other means of coercion).

In theory, people should care about prices. In practice, it's a different story.

Let's take an example of auto insurance. A car gets in a wreck. The insurance company recommends an "authorized" repair shop. The repair shop gives a quote that is at least twice as much as it should cost, often much more than that. The person getting their car repaired doesn't care as long as it gets fixed. The insurance (sales) agent doesn't care, as long as the customer is happy. The person who OKs the repair at the insurance company doesn't care, as long as they get their paycheck. The executives don't care, as long as they get their salaries and bonuses. Shareholders have no say or visibility whatsoever.

Nobody cares about the cost, therefore there is no price competition or market price discovery. The result is soaring prices. This is the essential problem with all government goods and services, but it is not limited to government.

Great example but this seems to be an imperfect market for one reason or another. Wouldn't an upstart auto insurance company be able to severely undercut it's competition by "authorizing" it's repair shops based upon price? A simple matter to ascertain free market value of repairs. Then just contract to send them lots of business.

I think the problem here is that auto insurance is mandated in most (all?) places. The auto insurance companies know that you've got to have it, so they're under that much less competitive pressure. They'd be much more "price conscious" about things like the cost of repairs if they didn't have a guaranteed market. IOW: The problem is not with the insurance per se, but with the mandatory nature of it ...

I think the problem here is that auto insurance is mandated in most (all?) places. The auto insurance companies know that you've got to have it, so they're under that much less competitive pressure. They'd be much more "price conscious" about things like the cost of repairs if they didn't have a guaranteed market. IOW: The problem is not with the insurance per se, but with the mandatory nature of it ...

It's funny watching the media spin this. One minute they're talking about how some of the Republican senators who aren't on board think the plan isn't enough, while others are conservative enough to think it isn't close enough to a straight repeal of the boondoggle.

Then they show the poll numbers and laugh at the fact that most Republicans disapprove of what the Republican members of the Congress are doing. But what they never, ever, ever say is, of course Republican voters don't approve, they want it gone.

It's funny watching the media spin this. One minute they're talking about how some of the Republican senators who aren't on board think the plan isn't enough, while others are conservative enough to think it isn't close enough to a straight repeal of the boondoggle.

Then they show the poll numbers and laugh at the fact that most Republicans disapprove of what the Republican members of the Congress are doing. But what they never, ever, ever say is, of course Republican voters don't approve, they want it gone.

Some of them would be OK with repealing Obamacare and replacing it with ACA, but what makes it so difficult to do a full repeal is because people have already gotten used to it. You may as well go out there and tell them you are going to take away their Medicare, but really all you'd have to do is say you want to tinker with it. People, especially the old folks, they don't like that kind of change when it comes to health care, and they are the ones who vote.

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

Some of them would be OK with repealing Obamacare and replacing it with ACA, but what makes it so difficult to do a full repeal is because people have already gotten used to it. You may as well go out there and tell them you are going to take away their Medicare, but really all you'd have to do is say you want to tinker with it. People, especially the old folks, they don't like that kind of change when it comes to health care, and they are the ones who vote.

Oh, there are a few with preexisting conditions who were unable to get anything before, and can under the ACA. They are very few in number, but they go to all the town halls and get all the mainstream media coverage in the world.

Saying anyone--anyone--else is absolutely wedded to the stuff is pure propaganda. Millions know full well they got better coverage for less a few years ago, and they'd go back in a heartbeat. Congress told us when it passed, we passed it and now you're stuck with it. And they meant it, and the media will never admit of any other possibility. Ever. But the percentage of the population who wouldn't gladly go back tomorrow is small. They may be vocal. But the percentage is tiny.

Oh, there are a few with preexisting conditions who were unable to get anything before, and can under the ACA. They are very few in number, but they go to all the town halls and get all the mainstream media coverage in the world.

Saying anyone--anyone--else is absolutely wedded to the stuff is pure propaganda. Millions know full well they got better coverage for less a few years ago, and they'd go back in a heartbeat. Congress told us when it passed, we passed it and now you're stuck with it. And they meant it, and the media will never admit of any other possibility. Ever. But the percentage of the population who wouldn't gladly go back tomorrow is small. They may be vocal. But the percentage is tiny.

So save your propaganda for someone who doesn't know better.

What 'propaganda'?

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

Oh, there are a few with preexisting conditions who were unable to get anything before, and can under the ACA. They are very few in number, but they go to all the town halls and get all the mainstream media coverage in the world.

Saying anyone--anyone--else is absolutely wedded to the stuff is pure propaganda. Millions know full well they got better coverage for less a few years ago, and they'd go back in a heartbeat. Congress told us when it passed, we passed it and now you're stuck with it. And they meant it, and the media will never admit of any other possibility. Ever. But the percentage of the population who wouldn't gladly go back tomorrow is small. They may be vocal. But the percentage is tiny.

So save your propaganda for someone who doesn't know better.

I know a ton of people that love ObamaCare- and are stormin' the castle to keep it; I am really surprised at how they think it is so wonderful.

Of course the answer is to get gov completely out of medical care but people have been in The Matrix for so long, they can't fathom it.

Oh, there are a few with preexisting conditions who were unable to get anything before, and can under the ACA. They are very few in number, but they go to all the town halls and get all the mainstream media coverage in the world.

Yeah I know someone who was like that because they just kept getting kicked off insurance policies. This was a young person in their 20's who couldn't afford the specialist doctors she needed to go to, not because she couldn't get insurance, but because healthcare was too $#@!ing expensive due to government intervention. Post ACA I have seen that individual get insurance that they never would of gotten before.

They pay 10's of thousands for their insurance and a ton out of pocket too, out of pocket costs have only increased for them. The doctors make you go extra visits and do extra tests to milk the insurance and pad their losses and pockets.

I haven't gotten anything but a head cold post ACA but PRE ACA I didn't even have insurance and I could go to the clinic for the same price as I pay now with insurance, and my private insurance I got in 2009 has increased a ton, taking a ton of money out of my pocket that I would of spent elsewhere in the economy.

Food is not a good analogy. People are not required by law to buy food insurance. If they were, I don't doubt you'd see the same phenomenon we're discussing (or something similar).

Also, I didn't say that there wasn't any competition in the auto insurance sector. I said that auto insurors are "under that much less competitive pressure" because they know that they have a locked in customer base (pretty much everyone who drives/owns a car). This gives them enough leeway that they can afford not to care as much about the cost of repairs as they would if auto insurance were a "take it or leave it" proposition for prospective insureds.

“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

Food is not a good analogy. People are not required by law to buy food insurance. If they were, I don't doubt you'd see the same phenomenon we're discussing (or something similar).

Also, I didn't say that there wasn't any competition in the auto insurance sector. I said that auto insurors are "under that much less competitive pressure" because they know that they have a locked in customer base (pretty much everyone who drives/owns a car). This gives them enough leeway that they can afford not to care as much about the cost of repairs as they would if auto insurance were a "take it or leave it" proposition for prospective insureds.

Unless there is collusion in price fixing there should be rigorous competition in selling auto insurance policies at some attractive mix of coverage, service, and price. Why would a governmental mandate reduce competition where both the producer and consumer are in the private sector? The government is not the consumer nor are they providing any subsidies.

Unless there is collusion in price fixing there should be rigorous competition in selling auto insurance policies at some attractive mix of coverage, service, and price.

If you really don't grasp the competition-depressing dynamics involved in forcing people to pay for something that they would otherwise have the option of buying or not, then I really don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by anaconda

Why would a governmental mandate reduce competition where both the producer and consumer are in the private sector? The government is not the consumer nor are they providing any subsidies.

But the government effectively is providing subsidies by forcing people to pay for auto insurance (rather than going through the more circuitous path of taxing them and then acting as the "consumer" on their behalf). In the case of auto insurance, unecessarily high repair prices are subsidized by all those who are forced to pay for insurance but who do not actually use it (or use it significantly less) because they don't happen to get into any accidents, or they responsibly maintain their cars well, or etc. This is the same dynamic by which schemes like "Obamacare" promote higher medical costs - net payers into the insurance system are forced to subsidize (and thereby encourage) the higher-than-otherwise-necessary costs incurred by the net receivers. The effect of those higher-than-necessary costs as a competitive disadvantage is functionally eliminated because all drivers/owners are being forced to pay regardless.

The auto insurance sector has less incentive to "pinch pennies" when it comes to things like repair costs because it can spread those costs over all its "captive" insureds. In fact, higher-than-necessary repair costs become a perverse sort of selling point, as when their insureds think, "Goodness! Look at how much money I would have had to spend without my insurance!" But one of the reasons those prices are so high in the first place is because insurors have less incentive to be competitively cost-conscious due to the mandatory nature of the insurance ...

If you really don't grasp the competition-depressing dynamics involved in forcing people to pay for something that they would otherwise have the option of buying or not, then I really don't know what to say.

But the government effectively is providing subsidies by forcing people to pay for auto insurance (rather than going through the more circuitous path of taxing them and then acting as the "consumer" on their behalf). In the case of auto insurance, unecessarily high repair prices are subsidized by all those who are forced to pay for insurance but who do not actually use it (or use it significantly less) because they don't happen to get into any accidents, or they responsibly maintain their cars well, or etc. This is the same dynamic by which schemes like "Obamacare" promote higher medical costs - net payers into the insurance system are forced to subsidize (and thereby encourage) the higher-than-otherwise-necessary costs incurred by the net receivers. The effect of those higher-than-necessary costs as a competitive disadvantage is functionally eliminated because all drivers/owners are being forced to pay regardless.

The auto insurance sector has less incentive to "pinch pennies" when it comes to things like repair costs because it can spread those costs over all its "captive" insureds. In fact, higher-than-necessary repair costs become a perverse sort of selling point, as when their insureds think, "Goodness! Look at how much money I would have had to spend without my insurance!" But one of the reasons those prices are so high in the first place is because insurors have less incentive to be competitively cost-conscious due to the mandatory nature of the insurance ...

People don't buy insurance with the assumption that they will necessarily "use" it. They join a risk pool to indemnify themselves. The money pool pays for civil damages among the minority of accident participants. I see no incentive for insurance companies to pay out higher claims than those established by free market supply and demand. Why would they accept higher claims costs and smaller profits?

People don't buy insurance with the assumption that they will necessarily "use" it. They join a risk pool to indemnify themselves. The money pool pays for civil damages among the minority of accident participants. I see no incentive for insurance companies to pay out higher claims than those established by free market supply and demand. Why would they accept higher claims costs and smaller profits?

... *shrug* ...

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

If you really don't grasp the competition-depressing dynamics involved in forcing people to pay for something that they would otherwise have the option of buying or not, then I really don't know what to say.